303 karma · joined August 29, 2018
"Bandera was a World War II Ukrainian insurgent" he is a very very controversial character[0] and that description is quite reducing.
yes obesity is bad, as the source enemy of most diseases that kill and are not cancer is inflammation. find a diet that makes you not obese and have low inflammation, that is vastly superior to "Mediterranean diet" or "plant diet" for everyone.
Yes some banks still allow classic clunky 2FA(sms, card readers, sometimes SIM generators) but it'll all eventually go away in favor of "locked and favored" os unless legislation fights against it.
My personal anecdotal experience is that wayland is a lot better than X11 performance wise. It feels snappier, and it has been rockstable. Please note I'm using a KDE based distro(neon) and on both nvidia and intel gpu it has been great.
If you are looking for raw performance based on simple frameworks, I do believe X11 will probably better, but for most people wayland will bring improvements. Yes I could get insane terms performance in an urxvt with FB under X11. Do I need it? Not really when my the system still behaves.
As a devil's advocate argument, it is true that wayland has come from being a lot worse O(years) ago.
some complaints from OP: * "A crash in the window manager takes down all running applications" - this was true, but it has started to change, see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Qt-Wayland-Compositor-Restart#... * "You cannot do a lot of things that you can do in Xorg by design" - I do not see this as an issue, other than having emotional attachement to Xorg. * "It offloads a lot of work to each and every window manager. As a result, the same basic features get implemented differently in different window managers, with different behaviors and bugs - so what works on desktop environment A does not necessarily work in desktop environment B (e.g., often you hear that something "works in Wayland", even though it only really works on Gnome and KDE, not in all Wayland implementations)." - this is true, but again, it means that instead of complaining to a monolithic project you complain to a specific implementation. And I disagree this would be wasteful as there are clear design decisions done differently by different wayland implementation. * "Wayland breaks screen recording applications" - Google Meet, Zoom, OBS Studio all work fine here. I guess if you mean X11 recording, then yeah it's broken. * "Wayland breaks automation software" - yeah, again, changed of display protocol will break existing automation. That's called change, and is not inherent to wayland * "Wayland is biased toward Linux and breaks BSD" - that one's valid. * "Wayland requires JWM, TWM, XDM, IceWM,... to reimplement Xorg-like functionality" - Well duh, it's not X11, it does require a lot of new implementation. X11 was made as a kitchensync that can do everything. That's not necessarily a good thing in the modern world.
I think there is a pattern there, the OP is mostly complaining that things are changing and some new things don't yet work. But he forgets that wayland appeared out of very good reason: - inefficient indirect rendering - security flaws(too easy to actually do a keylogger) - kitchensync approach(where it did everything) making it large and monolithic.
I haven't found it to be rough on pans, but I only use thick stainless steel pans with aluminium/copper core.
PS: yes, gas is enjoyable as it gives you this primal heat feeling:)
There is an enormous scandal to come behind the vilification of cholesterol and the simplification of its level's interpretation to come, which led to the current epidemic of obesity and metabolic/inflammatory/autoimmune diseases. Cholesterol levels vary hugely based on the genetics, epigenetics and lifestyle of an individual, and there is a very large amount of individuals that are within normal range with much higher ldl levels. For example, the cholesterol levels of centennials are usually extremely high.
Things to look out for: - high very small LDL(you need a proper analysis of your LDL levels with a histogram of the size distribution, which is very rarely done and more expensive) - high Triglyceride/HDL ratio(in US units, anything above 2 is not a very good sign) - high hbA1C (metabolic issues) - high lp(a) and/or lp(b) - high hs-CRP (general inflammation, but can be caused by infection if you are sick)
Usually those are all related and high when affecting a normally healthy individual).
I am a freshwater fisherman myself, and I do it on any fish I intend to keep, and release them very quickly otherwise.
Remember they are allowed to operate in a completly unrestricted way even against british citizens. They are as bad people as Mossad and CIA.
Should the default android be locked, with no root, play store verifying apps, etc, absolutely. This is great for the average user that desires nothing more than just running play store apps.
Should you have the ability to run what you want on your phone, and copy the data from the app that you installed, after accepting the risks? absolutely.
It is already non trivial to install root, and adb locked root for example makes things vastly more secure even in that case(that is, you can only adb su into your phone, you can't grant the permission to an app directly). Especially with locked adb having fingerprint verification.
On grapheneos you can get basic. You can't get device, which is now needed by a lot of applications. See another example at: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/18118-play-integrity-meets-...
Play integrity by locking everything to the Google/Main vendors is making it less and less possible to run non-primary images/oses. And it's not for users security, it's for apps security, so this is purely to reassure the industry, and yet it is just another security theater. Running with strong integrity on a rooted device is possible with semi-significant effort, and that's good. It means that we're not relying on security by obscurity, and we can look at what's running on the phones.
This API/requirements set was uniquely put by pressure from various vendors(think banks and various "security-certification" obsessed parties), and was already quite unpleasant, as it excludes any form of rooting, even if your root-access is adb only. But it gets worse as now non-official images are getting excluded not only from strong integrity[0] but also device integrity. Numerous apps are now requiring device integrity and hence won't be usable even on a locked, signed android image if it's not google or vendor-official.
It actually gets worse. Google has been silently restricting the api results(as of may): - basic requires a certified device with an android platform key attestation - device now requires a hardware verified boot, with locked bootloader and recent security patch. This excludes lots of devices - strong requires security patch on all partitions
And it gets even worse. On recent play stores & android versions, as apps have to be installed or updated by google play to get a full integirty response. no more sideloading APKs or alternative stores.
This is nothing but a clear move to a full lock-in to play store, where the majority of vendors live, to end up with a fully locked a-la-apple ecosystem. This doesn't improve security, people that know still have ways to bypass those restrictions when needed. All it does is give the illusion of safety.
I would personally feel like: 1 - rooting should be allowed on a certified device with most apps still working. This could be done with a locked bootloader too if they provided such an image for debug. 2 - alternative os, like graphene, should be given a way to pass all attestations, as well as alternative stores, provided they follow a set of constraints.
With this in mind, I can't be positive about android 16 and new versions going down a grim locked future.
[0] https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/6361-play-integrity-api-and...